Goodness S(t)akes Alive!!

[BC MIST]

A player's ball is at rest in grass on the fairway side of a water hazard stake, close to the stake but not touching it. He removes the stake and coincidentally the ball falls into the hole where the stake was previously located. The movement of the ball was not attributable to the removal of the stake nor did anyone cause the ball to move. The ball is not visible nor can it be recovered from the hole. What is the ruling?

[Sakuraba]

Well, that sounds like a ball lost in a hazard to me, I'm "virtually certain" he can take a drop under penalty of one stroke and play within one club length (no nearer) from the spot where his ball entered the hazard.
Of course, I've been wrong more often than right on these...

[BC MIST]

Well, that sounds like a ball lost in a hazard to me, I'm "virtually certain" he can take a drop under penalty of one stroke and play within one club length (no nearer) from the spot where his ball entered the hazard.
Of course, I've been wrong more often than right on these...

Thanks for giving it a go.

Before revealing the "final answer" and to give others a chance to read the scenario:
(1) Would you consider the hole made by the water hazard stake, a "hole made by a greenkeeper," from which free relief may be available?
(2) In addition to the coloured stakes, if there was also a red or yellow line indicating the margin of the hazard, how might that affect the ruling?

[PapaPat]

Well, that sounds like a ball lost in a hazard to me, I'm "virtually certain" he can take a drop under penalty of one stroke and play within one club length (no nearer) from the spot where his ball entered the hazard.
Of course, I've been wrong more often than right on these...

While we're waiting for the answer, let's clean this up. The old maxim says if it is free, it is one club length, if you pay for it, it is two.

Assuming that the stake is inside any lines that might exist, then the hole left by it is also inside the hazard and therefore no relief is available. If there are no lines, the hole is by definition within the hazard. So I agree with the answer above. However, I would prefer that it be described as a ball not found in a hazard rather than a ball "lost" in a hazard. And yes, I did dust off my decision book in order to hazard this guess at the answer.

[Sakuraba]

While we're waiting for the answer, let's clean this up. The old maxim says if it is free, it is one club length, if you pay for it, it is two.

Assuming that the stake is inside any lines that might exist, then the hole left by it is also inside the hazard and therefore no relief is available. If there are no lines, the hole is by definition within the hazard. So I agree with the answer above. However, I would prefer that it be described as a ball not found in a hazard rather than a ball "lost" in a hazard. And yes, I did dust off my decision book in order to hazard this guess at the answer.

I agree, I meant to say 2 strokes.
What I thought BC was driving at particularly was the "known or virtually certain" part of the ball in the hazard rule. If we see the ball go in the hazard (in ths case a stake hole) but cannot retrieve it, that is an excellent example of a ball lost in a hazard.
However, I was totally unaware of any definition of a hole made by a greenskeeper, nor did I consider if the hazard was lateral.

[PapaPat]

I agree, I meant to say 2 strokes.
What I thought BC was driving at particularly was the "known or virtually certain" part of the ball in the hazard rule. If we see the ball go in the hazard (in ths case a stake hole) but cannot retrieve it, that is an excellent example of a ball lost in a hazard.
However, I was totally unaware of any definition of a hole made by a greenskeeper, nor did I consider if the hazard was lateral.

I'm sure BC will straighten us both out in due time. From my reading, the hole left by the stake is in fact a "hole made by a greenskeeper", but since it is in the WH or LWH, no relief is available (25/18). Referring to the ball as "lost" in the hazard is potentially confusing since you can not have a "lost" ball in a hazard, only one that you can not find.

[BC MIST]

What I thought BC was driving at particularly was the "known or virtually certain" part of the ball in the hazard rule. If we see the ball go in the hazard (in ths case a stake hole) but cannot retrieve it, that is an excellent example of a ball lost in a hazard.

It was also good that you considered KVC, even though it did not apply to this ruling. The initial description meant to indicate that it was known where the ball was. Because I said water hazard, the penalty is 1 stroke and the golfer may choose the stroke and distance option or he may drop a ball behind the hazard keeping the point where it last crossed the margin between him and the hole. FYI, since the margin of a water hazard extends both vertically up and down, this helps to confirm that the ball is in the hazard even though it was below ground level.

I threw in the "hole made by a greenkeeper" because it is an element that might have to be considered. Papa has explained that it, but also why free relief is not available. Before tournaments when I have painted lines to indicate hazard margins, I make sure that the stakes are inside the hazard or on the actual line. However, I have seen course markings where the stakes are actually outside the hazard lines, so free relief would be available because if there are lines, they define the actual hazard margins and if there are also stakes, the stakes ONLY identify the hazard, but don't define it.

[PapaPat]

Before tournaments when I have painted lines to indicate hazard margins, I make sure that the stakes are inside the hazard or on the actual line. However, I have seen course markings where the stakes are actually outside the hazard lines, so free relief would be available because if there are lines, they define the actual hazard margins and if there are also stakes, the stakes ONLY identify the hazard, but don't define it.

This is a good reminder. I'm afraid that at many courses I see, the person marking the lines tends to run them between the stakes. Your point of making sure that the stakes are inside the lines is best and something I will watch for in the future.

Thanks for the tester. We did not do too bad.

[BC MIST]

This is a good reminder. I'm afraid that at many courses I see, the person marking the lines tends to run them between the stakes. Your point of making sure that the stakes are inside the lines is best and something I will watch for in the future.

Thanks for the tester. We did not do too bad.

I am going to assume that the initial routines for Hypothetical Rulings are still in effect. Anyone may contribute, but those who are certified are asked to refrain from answering other's rulings. However, anyone may contribute to Ruling Wanted or Rules Discussion. Someone will correct me if I am wrong.

[PapaPat]

I am going to assume that the initial routines for Hypothetical Rulings iare still in effect. Anyone may contribute, but those who are certified are asked to refrain from answering other's rulings. However, anyone may contribute to Ruling Wanted or Rules Discussion. Someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks for pointing that out. I can see where this would be a good practice unless of course you happened to disagree with something that was posted. I'll lay back on the next "Hypothetical" ones, but you did send me to the books for this one.

[AAA]

PP
I think you should only post if the 'disagreement' is with a 'certified poster'. IMO wait until the original poser has commented on the replies.

[PapaPat]

PP
I think you should only post if the 'disagreement' is with a 'certified poster'. IMO wait until the original poser has commented on the replies.

Thanks, that's what I really meant to say.